Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : Dell Technologies Inc. -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: BGR who wrote (80855)	11/17/1998 2:24:00 AM
From: Moominoid	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 176387

I got the risk premium number from Brearly and Myers The one I'm using I think is based on Ibbotson Associates work. You'll get different numbers for different periods. Recent talk has been about the ep falling to even lower rates such as 4% or so as the public has become less averse to holding shares. These numbers are derived from trying to explain the valuation of the S&P 500 rather than from historical returns as in the case of the former numbers. David

To: BGR who wrote (80855)	11/17/1998 2:03:00 PM
From: Chuzzlewit	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 176387

Apratim, the problem with those numbers is that they are really used to rationalize the market rather than explain it mechanistically. In other words, investors feel good about the future so stocks get bid up. Financial academics sit around thinking of ways to modify the parameters in existing valuation models to make them work. It is all post hoc stuff, and I like predictive models. That is the point of contention that I have with David Stern. Instead, I've been focusing on relative valuation. The advantage to this is you don't need to worry about the valuation parameters, since they cancel out. I've come up with CNPEG to deal with this. Humility prevents me from telling you what the "C" stands for, but NPEG stand for normalized Price to Earnings Growth. Basically, you take the PEG of the company under consideration and divide it by the PEG of the S&P500. Anything under 1.00 would be considered undervalued. Here is a source for some PEG data (but you need to rework these because PEGs should be long term [5 year] growth rates): biz.yahoo.com Now, let's apply this concept to Dell. Earnings next year are expected to come in at around $1.50, and I am forecasting the five year growth at a minimum of 40%. This yields a PEG of around 1.05. By contrast, The S&P has a PEG of around 2.9. Applying the CNPEG approach we get a normalized PEG of 0.37. I interpret this to mean that regardless of the parameters used to generate the valuation models, Dell is valued much lower than its S&P brethren. In fact, the implied growth of Dell is around 15%. So if you believe, as I do, that Dell will grow substantially faster than 15% over the next five years I think you must conclude that Dell is a buy. TTFN, CTC